40
$\begingroup$

The purpose of this thread is to help focus the attention of the community on posts that may require reopen and undeletion votes. A request should be posted as an answer below (one request per answer).

Some guidelines:

  • Please be polite, and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community. This goes for the person making the request as well as those commenting on it.

  • There is a reopen queue. Please wait until a post has gone through this queue, before posting here. Notice that the first edit after the question was put on-hold pushes the question into reopen review queue, if the edit was done within 5 days of closure. So does a reopen vote. (If the review has already been finished, it is shown on the timeline of the question.) In doubt, wait 24 hours after the last substantive action.

  • To inform readers of the current (and past) states of the targeted post, please add once the request resulted in some action the information Reopened or Undeleted at the start. (If it the action is undone, add this too, like Reopened, reclosed.)

  • Do not only post a request, like "request reopening of ". Instead make a case for your concern. Yet keep in mind that it can be easier to get your request handled if you try to frame in a away that takes the feedback the post received into account in a positive way rather then seeking confrontation. Also, try to improve the post before posting here.

  • In case of "small" requests, like one missing vote, it can make sense to ask in chat instead of posting here. The room CRUDE is a reasonable place for such requests. The same guidelines apply there.


Earlier versions of this thread that served as a model:

| |
$\endgroup$

162 Answers 162

1 2 3 4 5
6
-1
$\begingroup$

Deleted.

2 or 3 days ago, the question What's the connection between the Heegner numbers and 37? was asked.

(1). The first version of that question, was not eligible as a question to be asked in MSE, and I was the fifth user, who voted to close the question.

(2). In the comments:

  • User @David wrote that: 37 is the largest prime for which -163 is a quadratic non-residue.
  • Then I pointed out that his comment is not right by this comment: Consider this Legendre symbol: (−163/137)=−1.
  • Then he answered that: The statement is more like 37 is largest prime p s.t. All primes, q: 2<q<=p have (−163/q)=−1. I would like to state this correctly and succinctly.

(3). Why I was convinced that his question is a good question?

  • His comment was interesting to me, because I've realized that the phenomenon, which he pointed out, is not accidental and is closely related to the properties of Heegner numbers. [Not important: As you can see in the comments; at first, I wrongly thought that it is related to Rabinowitz theorem. For proof of the Rabinowitz theorem see this answer by Will Jagy.]
  • Definition: A Heegner number is a square-free positive integer $d$ such that the imaginary quadratic field $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-d})$ has class number $1$. I wrote my answer, in the comments [see these six consecutive comments]. If we set this definition as the definition of Heegner Numbers, then the First case is just the immediate consequence of the definition. I mean whether we know the total set of Heegner numbers is finite or not, we can do the first case without any use of powerful theorems like Baker–Stark–Heegner theorem, just by the knowledge of $19^{\text{th}}$ century. [Very Important: Unfortunately, in the Second case, I strongly used the Baker–Stark–Heegner theorem. Not important: If we break the second case in some new cases, then the case "$(\dfrac{-H}{q})=0$ and $q^2 \nmid (H)$" can be done in a quite elementary manner, but yet I don't have any idea to do the case "$(\dfrac{-H}{q})=0$ and $q^2 \mid (H)$".]

(4). If a curious person sees that question, then probably he/ she would click on the show N more comments to see the comments. So Why do I insist to reopen that question? An unsatisfactory answer would be something like this: (A) Suppose that a random student who does not have enough curiosity about this special question, will see this question. (+) Since this question is closed for the lack of details, (++) and since there is not an answer for it; the most probable scenario would be that he/ she will be taught there is nothing special behind this question. (B) Another unsatisfactory answer would be something like this: From a pedagogical point of view: Someone else can write a better answer, maybe someone can be able to answer it without using any powerful theorems. Finally, reading a solution as a single answer is better to follow the separated comments. At last, I should confess whether this question reopens or not, it would not cause important changes.

(5): TOTALLY IRRELEVANT: As a math student, I should be careful about my counting: In my last comment, I wrote My 7th comment, but it was my eighth comment.




Added after the edit:

Let's set this definition as the definition of a Heegner number. As I stated in the comments, the question can be considered as

  • Q($1$): Let $H$ be a Heegner number, then for any prime $2 \neq q \leq \dfrac{1+H}{4}-2$ we have $(\dfrac{-H}{q})=-1$,

Or equivalently:

  • Q($2$): Let $H$ be a positve square-free integer, and let $q$ be a prime number $2 \neq q \leq \dfrac{1+H}{4}-2$, such that $(\dfrac{-H}{q})=+1$. Then $H$ is not a Heegner number.

Both of these equivalent questions are very surprising to me. Now consider this question:

  • Q($3$): Let $200 \leq H$ be a positve square-free integer, then there exists a prime number $q$ such that: $2 \neq q \leq \dfrac{1+H}{4}-2$ and $(\dfrac{-H}{q})=+1$.

If I was able to prove the above question, then the Baker–Heegner–Stark theorem, would follow immediately. So Q($3$) is not an easy question.

  • Reamrk($4$): Let $\dfrac{49}{3} \leq H \stackrel{8}{\equiv} 3$, then the Gauss's upper bound [Gauss's bound, is a better bound, than Minkowski's bound, for the norm of ideals to be checked in order to determine the class number of the imaginary quadratic field $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-H})$], tells us: By considering Baker–Heegner–Stark theorem, if $H \notin \{ 11, 19, 43, 67, 163 \}$, then there is a prime $q$ such that: $2 \neq q \leq \sqrt{\dfrac{H}{3}}$ and $(\dfrac{-H}{q})=+1$. Note that for $\dfrac{49}{3} \leq H$ this new bound is surprisingly smaller than $\dfrac{1+H}{4}-2$. These were some parts of my unsuccessful attempts to prove Q($3$), without use of Baker–Heegner–Stark theorem.
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You ask, "Why do I insist to reopen that question?" and then you give two reasons, both of which you yourself label as "unsatisfactory". So, I'm confused. Do you have a satisfactory reason for insisting on reopening the question? (And, if so, can you give it without boldface and blockquote and all-caps and other annoying typographical flourishes?) $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jun 16 at 23:58
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @GerryMyerson , I used the word "unsatisfactory" for the first answer (A), because I wasn't sure about the opinion of the generic person, who would see that answer; and also I didn't have enough courage to say that answer is satisfactory to me. Also, I didn't add new comments to that question, since writhing long mathematical comments is very hard to me, because of the lack of the editor to be aware of my LaTeX mistakes, and also there is a restriction on the total number of characters. $\endgroup$ – Davood KHAJEHPOUR Jun 17 at 6:28
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @GerryMyerson , I accustomed to use bold and colorful formats, for the convenience of the reader; because to me, it plays the role of change of tone in the web environment. I didn't even think that it may be annoying; thank you for notifying this subject. $\endgroup$ – Davood KHAJEHPOUR Jun 17 at 6:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DavoodKHAJEHPOUR Can you please edit your post here down to the essential details? There is so much extraneous commentary in it that I cannot pick out the reason(s) why you think this question should be reopened. I'll note that the question has now been deleted. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 17 at 13:58
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @XanderHenderson Since this edit would be something related to a question, which is already deleted; I am afraid that if I continue editing my post here, then I will be punished because of some rules that I do not know. Since there is no guarantee that I will not be punished, I will not continue no longer; However, I believe that the answer to that question contained important things. $\endgroup$ – Davood KHAJEHPOUR Jun 17 at 14:17
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @DavoodKHAJEHPOUR You will not be punished for editing your answer to make it more clear. If you believe that the question is worth saving, then you should clearly and concisely make your case. Three screenfuls of oddly formatted, rambling text is unlikely to convince anyone. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 17 at 15:07
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson If writing that question and its comments would be helpful, I will do this. Do you mean this? $\endgroup$ – Davood KHAJEHPOUR Jun 17 at 15:54
-2
$\begingroup$

I nominate https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/29570/290189 to be undeleted because this meta question contains moderator's feedback to deal with serial downvotes.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What information is in that post that is not in the FAQ? Also as it was auto-delered it'd be redeleted. $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 9 '19 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ @quid That post provides real examples of questions being serial downvoted. $\endgroup$ – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會 Feb 9 '19 at 12:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How is that useful? $\endgroup$ – quid Feb 9 '19 at 13:14
-2
$\begingroup$

Deleted, undeleted, redeleted and merged with another question

I request the undeletion of this question (on denesting $\sqrt{a-b\sqrt{c}}\,)$

Reason: I asked this question, and it turned out to be a duplicate. However, this doesn't deserve deletion as this question contains a crucial formula that is a very useful one. It is very useful to me, and it is sad for me to see that the community is not able to access it anymore. Please undelete this question.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The answers there are dupes of the answers in the linked dupe thread (and many others - this is a FAQ). I see no reason to further such rampant duplication. $\endgroup$ – Gone Mar 1 '19 at 1:03
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque there is a useful formula. Perhaps if you can transfer the answer to the other question?? I find it really useful. $\endgroup$ – Max0815 Mar 1 '19 at 1:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That well-known formula is already in Frank's answer in the dupe (and many, many other answers here). Moreover, he derives if instead of pulling it out of a hat as in the answer in your thread. $\endgroup$ – Gone Mar 1 '19 at 1:06
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque how is it derived? even if so, the other answer on my question has a basic method that is not included in the other question. $\endgroup$ – Max0815 Mar 1 '19 at 1:08
  • $\begingroup$ Please read Frank's linked answer (and the others too). That's the point of linking your question to the dupe target. $\endgroup$ – Gone Mar 1 '19 at 1:09
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque oh, right. $\endgroup$ – Max0815 Mar 1 '19 at 1:11
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand why this question was deleted. It seems to me that the only reason is that it is a duplicate. I do not believe that this is a reason to delete duplicated (and this was discussed recently here). $\endgroup$ – user1729 Mar 7 '19 at 13:10
-2
$\begingroup$

I would like to see this question undeleted and mark as duplicate but keep it alive on the network.

Also, I object to the deletion since although the questions are looking for the same thing, I must mention that they are not word by word duplicates and the context also seems a bit different. Also, the answers are not duplicates (except one which coincidentally was answered by the respective OPs of both questions).

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This question was deleted by a moderator, which means that only a moderator can undelete it. As such, there is pretty much nothing that anyone here can do for you. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Apr 5 '19 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson I posted this on meta. Someone asked me to post here (just to be shot with 3 odd downvotes here ) $\endgroup$ – tatan Apr 5 '19 at 18:54
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Votes on meta do not mean the same thing that they mean on the main site. A downvote means "I do not agree with this statement." I would interpret the downvotes here as an indication that the community does not want to reopen / undelete your question. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Apr 5 '19 at 20:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Aloizio Macedo can you please give some reasons on why you single-handedly deleted the question? (as it stands it looks like an abuse of power, but maybe there'a reason that I'm missing) $\endgroup$ – Zacky Jul 22 '19 at 9:16
-2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted,reopened

+6 question with thousands of views and with two, +18 answers. Created in 2016, deleted last week.

Found by the SEDE query Suspicious question deletions from the last week.

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Standard solve-my-problem-without-me post, and nothing spectacular about the answers. I oppose undeletion. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 '19 at 10:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers To me, it is absolutely non-trivial, if the sum of a singular and a nonsingular matrix is always nonsingular. The example in the accepted answer was catartic to me. Your attitude would be probably acceptable on the MO, but that is another site. Here sub-phd, maybe even pre-grad level questions are allowed, and you should view the quality and usefulness of a question on the level for which it is written, and not on yours. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 3 '19 at 10:38
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I have no idea at what level the question was written (and neither do you), because the asker never bothered to say anything at all beyond the statement of the problem. This is not a do-my-homework site, regardless of how little quality control some users want. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 '19 at 10:44
  • $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers Maybe the user 1) is enough educated to be able to think about, is the sum singular and nonsingular matrix always nonsingular 2) But he is not enough well educated to know its answer? Is it enough narrow to know, who is he? Hm? Or should he have attached his CV to his question as well? $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 3 '19 at 10:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This isn't a case for some hyperbolic slippery slope argument, and you know that. If the question had context, it could be appropriate for the site. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 '19 at 10:51
  • $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers The required "context" what you would want so strongly, is clearly visible in the post. And you know that. This is a typical case of the dark direction what you made from this once so friendly and open site. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 3 '19 at 10:54
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I disagree with T.Bongers's comment: "Standard solve-my-problem-without-me post..." In what "standard", if exists at all, for a site "that is for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields"? I disagree with the deletion in a way that I would strongly disagree with (possible in the future) deletion of this and this "standard" exercises (created 2016 and 2018) T.Bongers answered (nicely!). $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 3 '19 at 11:55
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Jack Thanks for bringing those posts to my attention; I agree with your judgement of the first one (but not the second), and have started a close vote. I would delete my answer if I could, but it was accepted. Of course, it's clear that your comment is a disingenuous off-topic attempt to poison the well by calling me a hypocrite. So it goes. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 3 '19 at 12:15
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers: Thank you for your message. "it's clear that your comment is a disingenuous off-topic attempt to poison the well by calling me a hypocrite." Please don't put any word into my mouth that I did not say at all. I am sorry that you think it in that way. I do mean what I said and I do NOT mean to be sarcastic at all. Since we are talking about "deletion", I don't think my previous comment is off-topic. And yes, if you or others were going to vote to delete the linked posts that you answered, I would disagree and vote to undelete. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 3 '19 at 12:48
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I'd like to remind everyone to keep it civil. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 3 '19 at 15:17
-2
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, Deleted.

This question on Laplace Transform has been deleted for no real reason. OP has showed some of his work. So there is no reason to delete this topic. Vote to undelete. Thanks.

We still need a single vote to undelete. Thanks in advance.

Laplace Transform $\left(\frac{\cos \sqrt t}{\sqrt t}\right)$

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ (1) The user presented two problem statements, not a single question. (2) The user did not (contrary to your assertion) demonstrate any work---they claimed to have done some work, but did not actually demonstrate any of that work. (3) The user provided no other context, such as a source for the problem, basic definitions... anything, really. (4) Finally, it is poor form to ask for undeletion of a question which you have answered without disclosing your interest in the problem. You are not an impartial third party, as you stand to benefit from the undeletion. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Apr 5 at 3:33
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Op said he used power series to solve one of the question but couldn't solve the second one . Both questions are related as I have shown in my answer. @XanderHenderson $\endgroup$ – Aryadeva Apr 5 at 3:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ (1) "Serie" is not a word. (2) The user claims to have done a thing. That doesn't mean that they have demonstrated that thing. Claiming to have done a thing does not provide any context for the problem. (3) So what if the problems are related? The user did none of the work necessary to demonstrate that relation. The "question" is presented as two isolated problems. It is the job of the asker to explain how the problems are related; it is not the job of the answerers to provide that context for the asker. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Apr 5 at 3:39
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I meant OP used power series. I hope it's more clear. $\endgroup$ – Aryadeva Apr 5 at 3:40
  • $\begingroup$ No. The user claimed to have used power series. A 2-year-old also can claim to use power series just because their big brother said so. Notice that you refused to address any of the 3 points @XanderHenderson brought up. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Apr 27 at 3:55
-3
$\begingroup$

I think we need to open the following Mike Lyons's answer: The smallest value of $x^2 + 5y^2 + 8z^2$ such that $yz+zx+xy=-1$

I think it's a beautiful and right answer. We need to redact it only.

It was my mistake to delete this answer.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that the question has since been deleted. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Oct 9 '18 at 22:27
-3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, closed, re-deleted (not by question-asker this time)

Please reopen https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3129981/290189 because the question asker has self-deleted his/her own post after getting an answer. The communnity has not got enough time to judge its value.

$\endgroup$
-3
$\begingroup$

Please undelete https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2192864/290189 because OP has self-deleted his question one minute after receiving an answer from me. This is an abuse of the system.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ OP shouldn't have deleted it, but what a miserable excuse for a question! With all due respect, I don't think you should have answered it, not without first getting OP to bring it up to standards. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson May 24 '19 at 2:47
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The question was deleted one minute after receiving an answer, but this request was posted more than two years later. If the asker deleted the question to cover up the fact that they got help, then they already succeeded. I don't really see a reason to undelete this, because it would just get closed and deleted again. $\endgroup$ – user296602 May 24 '19 at 6:42
-3
$\begingroup$

Undeleted, deleted, undeleted, reopened

Minimize a+b+c+d given LCM(a,b,c,d)=1000 [closed]

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The relevant rule is this: "Before voting to delete, please check whether there are any good answers; [...] We don't like to lose great answers!" By voting to delete the question, you violated this rule. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 17:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I disagree with the way Xander disagreed: "I see no reason to undelete this question in it current form". I disagree with the deletion as I would disagree with (potentially possible) close/deletion of this question Xander answered: math.stackexchange.com/q/2414862 $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 1 '19 at 17:16
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Jack I have no problem with the closure of the question to which you linked. I do find your targeted citing of that question interesting, and would note that when I answered that question, I had been active on MSE for a grand total of 2 months, and had not yet learned the norms. If I saw that question newly posted today, I would likely very quickly vote to close. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 1 '19 at 17:28
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Normally when posting here, one is expected to put in an explanation for why this question should be undeleted, reopened, etc. The boldface line on the top is meant to indicate the status changes after posting, and not be a part of the request. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 '19 at 17:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson: "I have no problem with the closure of the question to which you linked". Sorry I do. I would disagree with closing the question you answered nicely I linked and in particular I would strongly disagree with deletion of that linked post. I do not think there was/is a "norm" for deletion so far for the site except the general rule peterh quoted in a comment. $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 1 '19 at 17:30
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid I was impressed on them. It is subjective. But their score is objective. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 17:45
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For moderator who keen on different opinions/ideas from his/her own by MSE users: "Please don't abuse your power to stir discussion up when users disagree with your (possibly not so wise) idea of deletion and 'and respect the many different viewpoints in our diverse community' ". $\endgroup$ – Jack Jun 1 '19 at 17:51
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @peterh: I don't see how that situation on server fault is "similar". And again, I'd ask you to avoid using inflammatory language. It helps no one, except perhaps you, to release pent up anger. It's inappropriate, and deteriorates the remote option that anyone is going to have a discussion. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 '19 at 17:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Jack so how about you respect others views or at least the rules of the site. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 '19 at 17:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If you think that this is somehow similar, you should spend a bit more time trying to learn the underlying software, the system of privileges, and what is the job of the moderators. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 '19 at 17:57
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh the discussion is on-going since years. Just this morning I spent an hour with an other user to analyze data about this. Users (as opposed to moderators) are severely rated limited as concerns deletions. That you are miffed because three of your posts were deleted, does not mean that there is some problem. Yes, some users are against deletions, but again that's true since years. Maybe focus more on following rules regarding questions quality, then the issue regarding deletions will be of much less relevance. Don't cherry pick rules. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 '19 at 18:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid It is your decision, what will be a mod issue. I need to notice, too, this sequence of events: 1) one of my old posts is deleted, in my opinion, falsely. 2) I complain on the meta. 3) The post gets an undelete and a reopen. 4) 2 of my old posts are deleted. | I think, the nicest possible interpretation is that my meta post attracted some attention to my old main site posts. The lesser nice, but maybe more likely interpretation is that these were revenge deletions for my complains. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 18:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh the short questions are not blindly deleted but they are reviewed for potential deletion. Well your question has 0 score [correction: -2 now], which leaves use were exactly. Five users thought they want the question closed. Maybe there view also should count for something. Of course they did not all bother to dv in addition, but there opinion seems to be clear. Kindly stop the cherry picking and the quoting of half-sentences. However you want to frame it, the thread is not good. Also the high score is a high quality is a gross over simplification, as everybody knows. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 '19 at 20:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh people evaluate your post and find it lacking. Of course you can pretend it's for other motives, but then way back then it was already closed. That some users upvoted the answer does not change that. It's well-known that often almost obvious stuff is especially well received because there are enough voters that can easily make sense of it. Again the answer is not good in the way I believe good is intended there. It's a correct yet completely standard answer to simple and contrived question. The site is better without that thread. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 '19 at 21:53
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I have edited the post (revisions, the version after my edit) in order to add at least some context. I have not case my undelete vote - I'll wait first to hear whether you are satisfied with the edit and leave some time for you if you want to edit it further. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 3 '19 at 5:16
-4
$\begingroup$

Please undelete and reopen this elementary post:
How to find the value of the expression $\log_3(a)+\log_3(b)+\log_3(c)$ given that $a$, $b$, and $c$ are the roots of $24x^3 - 121x^2 + 87x - 8 = 0$?

I answered question in this post, and I do not consider it missing context at all. OP summarized his/her attempt succinctly in the post: "Finding the roots seems complicated." (If one can find the roots $a$, $b$ and $c$, one can of course plug them into the expression $\log_3(a)+\log_3(b)+\log_3(c)$ to find its value. This is a natural attempt. OP did not notice that one does not need to solve the cubic equation in order to solve this problem.) Such attempt is by no means "I tried to solve this problem myself, but it seemed complicated."

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I will reiterate the comment I left before the question was deleted: I have read the question. The comment you cite does not seem to provide much context. Nearly any question on this site could be finished with the line "I tried to solve this problem myself, but it seemed complicated." Appropriate context would be, for example, a description of where this problem comes from, and what the asker is studying right now. A presentation of potentially relevant theorems and definitions would also provide context. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Sep 30 '19 at 19:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Moreover, the question has also been negatively received (while I don't usually consider voting on a question to be terribly compelling, it is a factor which should be considered), and neither of the answers is terribly compelling (J.G.'s answer has the advantage of being concise, while Jack's answer seems like overkill to me---why invoke Vieta's formulae (the question appears to be a question one might find in an elementary algebra class, though that context is missing; Vieta is, to the best of my knowledge, not generally taught in these kinds of classes). $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Sep 30 '19 at 19:06
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Finally, @Jack, you insist that the question has context because the asker stated "Finding the roots seems complicated." Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that this is context. I do not see how it is sufficient context. Better context would be an indication of what the student is studying and and what level; a reference for the problem; a discussion of what theorems, definitions, or other results they know; etc. The point of asking for "work done" is to get an indication of the level of the student. In this case, knowing that they tried to find the roots doesn't give much insight. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Sep 30 '19 at 19:11
-7
$\begingroup$

Ratio problem for aptitude exam in India [closed]

None of the questions was eligible for a deletion, and also their closure reason is highly problematic.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ If the question was not eligible for deletion then how, pray tell, was it deleted? The question itself is nothing more than a problem statement, with only minimal context given (it is from some Indian aptitude exam). The question is unmotivated, and there is zero evidence of any effort having been made to answer the question. I see no reason to undelete. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 1 '19 at 16:39
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ As an addendum, I find your demanding tone to be unpleasant. It is your opinion that this question, and the one you linked to above, should be undeleted. It is your opinion that they should be reopened. It is your opinion that no valid deletion reason exists. Clearly, others disagree with you. Demanding that others take some action is unreasonable. Make a request, make your case, then wait for the community to decide. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jun 1 '19 at 16:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I have no demanding tone. I see a content deletion rampage, targeting particularly me, possibly as a revenge action for my recent meta post, where I complained another rule violating content destruction. What you can see now, is that I try to do something about it. If it is "demanding tone" for you, let it be so, but it is not a reason to me to do anything differently. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 17:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @peterh Your phrasing "Needs undelete, possibly reopen, no valid deletion reason exists" is very aggressive and demanding, and stating that no valid deletion reason exists is rather dismissive of the people who disagree with you. A lot of the site functions well because of consensus, not dismissive attempts at solo decision-making. (-1) from me, because I think this is a bad question to keep on the site. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 1 '19 at 18:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers Please check the end of the other discussion. I not only complained, I also analyzed SEDE data. I invested this effort because 3 of my old posts were deleted within days, what made me suspect that it was not pure coincidence. In the current discussions, I've seen only little arguments that the posts were really bad, however the relevant rules explicitly forbid the deletion of questions with good answers. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 18:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers From here: "Before voting to delete, please check whether there are any good answers; [...] We don't like to lose great answers!" $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 1 '19 at 18:34
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @peterh It says: "Closed questions that are of no lasting value whatsoever should be flagged and deleted." Thus, explain the lasting value of the post. Same for the other question. As far as I can tell there is no lasting value. It might be nice that you helped that other users even though they did not follow the rules regarding question quality, but lasting value, there isn't any. $\endgroup$ – quid Jun 1 '19 at 18:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @peterh At least eight different experienced voters here think that the question is worth closure or deletion. Perhaps you could spend some time thinking about why that is, instead of just rules-lawyering to get the answer back. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Jun 2 '19 at 3:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers My problem with your this comment, and with your attitude, that after the removal of the argument from authority part, nothing remains. Only a bunch of revenge votes. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 2 '19 at 3:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers It is interesting! I worked a lot on the answer. Only that a problem is not interesting you, is not a reason to click delete. Actually, doing that is a power misuse. There should be clear rules, what makes a question deletable, none of them was mentioned. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 2 '19 at 5:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 Btw, my these whole current activities were initiated by the following sequence of events: 1) some of my posts were closed and deleted on crap reasons. I remained silent that time. 2) yet another of my old posts were deleted. I initiated a discussion on the meta. 3) Two another of my old posts were deleted. It was clearly a revenge action from the 10k+ side. | Deleting posts by revenge votes is clearly one of the most serious power misuses, and should be punished harshly. However, the mods looked elsewhere, and said "no proof". --> this was the point as I started $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 14 '19 at 11:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 my current activities, and I won't stop. I have the right to use the site as it should be used, I find it an ignorable surreality if you call this "rep farming", and I will fight the retroactive, massive content destructions until my last breath. So is it going, I am sorry. Downvoted posts don't deter me. Deleted posts don't deter me, I use them as examples of your hostility. The only what would deter me if you could somehow convince me, that what I want, is no good, but I think it will be a hard work. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 14 '19 at 11:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 After my comments yesterday, you've deleted my yet another answer, and I've got 5 downs. It all happened to my old posts. You are just a dirty mafia, and you have exactly zero moral base to complain any "rep farming", while you are downvoting and deleting main site posts as revenge, for unrelated meta activities. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 16 '19 at 6:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 I know very well, why. And also you know the "why" very well. I will continue this discussion if you stop playing the fair one, while your revenge actions are clearly visible. | Btw, the mods seem relative inactive in such infights, compared to other sites - on other sites, they had already probably intervened for my vehement style. However, they had probably intervened also for your retributive, revenge actions. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 16 '19 at 9:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GNUSupporter8964民主女神地下教會 Oh yeah, of course "no revenge"... $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jun 17 '19 at 8:59
1 2 3 4 5
6

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .